rickyp wrote:steve
and then, apparently, you can't find a similar case anywhere in the US. Not one.
Thats right. and the striking difference is that in the theatres of war access to arms is constant. But on domestic bases there is strict gun control.
Hasan, to arm himself, had to go off base. Which, by the way, is what Al Queada told its operatives to do in its training. "Don't worry about smuggling guns into the US, you'll be able to arm yourself very easily".
You, like a child, keep trying to make the Hasan terror attack about gun control. When I point out that it was gun control that PREVENTED those soldiers from defending themselves, you . . . change the argument to attacks occurring overseas under entirely different circumstances (combat zone).
The attack occurred in Texas. If it was not on a base, the citizens, by virtue of Texas law and the US Constitution, might well have been armed and could have defended themselves. Gun control on the base made Hasan's attack EASIER.
Sometimes, Ricky, you have to eat your vegetables.
But no, I don't think the answer is that simple... There are a number of factors at play. The point I'm making is that there are more similarities between his actions and those of run of the mill (If there is such a thing) work place shooters and his actions.
No, because their motivations are entirely different. Your problem is that your source is the Huffington Post--yeah, I googled. They list lots of "workplace shootings" with no reference to motivation. Hasan is on their list. You really need to think for yourself. Hasan was motivated by his religion. Here, try this right-wing rag:
Newsweek:"Almost all of these vengeful killers have suffered some catastrophic loss," says Levine. "It’s always the loss of the job or a loss of a lot of money in the stock market." The more lost jobs, the more likely an employee will be triggered to commit a violent crime.
Once the loss occurs, there's a lot of blame to go around. "These people tend to be conspiratorial," says Levine. "In their mind, it's not just their boss but the guy sitting at the next desk" who contributed to the employee's termination, which is why everyone is the target when the shooting begins. Racism may or may not have occurred at this company, but it's a motivating trigger used to justify the shooting. (Many types of mass shooters see themselves as victims: recall George Sodini, the mass shooter who killed several women in a Pittsburgh-area gym because he felt that women had denied him the companionship to which he somehow felt entitled. As far as the race of the shooter goes, Levine notes that 70 percent of mass shooters are white, which is proportionate with the percentage of white people in the population, not a statement about the racial demographics of mass shooters.)
And while the men who perpetrate these shootings—and the killers are usually men, but not always—are not well, they're also not psychotic, making it difficult to weed out potential shooters during job interviews or prescreenings. "Most of the pathology is situational," says Levine. "These tests can fail to detect someone who might open fire because of the frustrations that come with the job."
To combat disgruntled workers, Levine says, some companies have been employing more compassionate firing processes, a practice during the recession of the '90s. While it's not the employer's fault or responsibility when a shooting occurs, more humane human resources can avoid a variety of problems and may deter shootings.
Now, according to mental health experts, workplace shootings follow some kind of real or perceived catastrophic loss--a job or an unrequited love. What was Hasan's loss? What motivated him that would make this a "workplace shooting?"
The answer, obviously, is "nothing." However, that doesn't stop the dishonest Huffpo or the unthinking parrot who simply repeats what he's uncritically read.
But the common element in EVERY mass shooting is that there was absolute ease of access to the weapons, regardless of the suspected mental state of the assailant.
Yeah, maybe the gun seller should have asked Hasan to eat some bacon, spit on the Qur'an, or blaspheme Muhammad.
Here's a little insight from a professional
Actually, it was very little insight. I read the article. It was written in Nov. 2009--within a few days of the shooting. It seems the author was unaware of the connection between the shooter and Al-Alawki. He chalked it up to alienation, but I think we know a lot more now about his motivation than this doctor did then. Points for trying though.
I agree with Steve's original premise that the Army was negligent. Considering the resources they apparently have, far better than Loughrens college, you'd think they'd do a better job of intervening in his behaviour.
And, they would have--if they weren't afraid of people who share your "radical Islam is an overblown myth" worldview.
Still, what you and Steve seem to think is that mentally ill people, like Hasan and Loughren, should continue to have the right to conveniently arm themselves.
Please point to me or Tom saying this. I'll wait.
And as long as you, and the majority of Americans, delude yourselves into believing that restricting access to guns can't affect the numbers of gun deaths or the numbers of events like Hasan and Loughren and Luby and the IBM shooter in Florida ...nothing will be done.
You know what would have stopped Loughner? His parents or someone who cared going to court and having him committed.
You know what would have stopped Hasan? The soldiers at Fort Hood being armed--as is their right under Texas law. He would have drawn his weapon, maybe shot once, and then gone down in a hail of gunfire.
You know what else would have stopped Hasan? The FBI and the military doing the right thing. He should have been in the stockade after lecturing as he did. He should have been booted out of the military and been on every watch list around.
Which means that another 25 to 26 thousand people will die from guns in the US this year, and there will be at least another half dozen mass shootings .
Change the Constitution.
Oh, forgot--you can't. You're a Canadian.
You think its not delusional to continue the same gun policies and expect that there will be a difference ?
Btw, how do gangs get AK-47's and other assault weapons--even though they're illegal?
Does absolute gun control work?Police said that Zhou Yezhong killed his mother, wife, daughter, four neighbours and a migrant worker in eastern China's Jiangxi province.
He was arrested on Saturday evening, less than two hours after the attacks took place, Xinhua news agency said.
There are many more:China has executed one of the worst serial killers in the country's history - a man convicted of 67 murders.
Yang Xinhai, 38, was found guilty earlier this month of a three-year killing spree, after a one-hour trial.
It said he used a hammer to carry out some of the attacks in four provinces, sometimes murdering entire families.
Some reports suggested he was angry after being rejected by his girlfriend, but others said he was motiveless killer who simply enjoyed death.
He had waived his right to an appeal, after being sentenced in the city of Luohe, in the province of Hunan.
He was also convicted of 23 rapes.
Steve can't even get it through his head that the US armed forces restrict weapons possession with past insight, and with, until Hasan got his guns off base , success.
You can't get it through your head that Hasan could have acquired weapons illegally. You cannot get it through your head that disarming the other soldiers made them easy prey. You cannot get it through your head that Hasan was motivated by his religion.
Answer this question: Why did Hasan go on his rampage?
06 Feb 2011, 9:03 am 
